NationStates Jolt Archive

Although I don't intend to hang around too much, I decided to subject this proposal to debate on the forums first, so that I won't be the target of any "surprises". The proposal has been made available on page three of the proposal list.



The Conscious Voting System

Description : Ever since democracy has become an extremely used notion, the idea of universal voting has dominated this government system. Voting has also been present in several other systems, although not pointing clearly to the election of a new government. However, recent studies have shown that a large mass of the population is incapable of taking a clear decision when voting. The reasons are countless.

Therefore, we propose the next articles, which should be adopted by UN countries that support universal voting, even if biased.

1.The legal age for a young person to be eligible to vote
should be 21. At 18, a young man might be self-aware, but in most cases he will not be politically conscious. Any derogation from this law, should keep the minimal age of 21 as a necessary condition.

2. No person older than 65 should be able to vote, without
presenting a mental health file. From this age brain degenerative disease such as Alhzeimer may uncounsciously affect one's reason.

3.Before being eligible to vote, any 21 year old youngster
should present a mental health certificate, a nationality
proof certificate and a signed petition to prove that he hasn't been a part of any forbidden or radical political and military group. This proof should simply be a form containing all the political groups, political activity and contact that the young man has had in the past years.

4.Any illegal voting should be punished by the canceling of the vote (if possible) and a fee, established by each state. The conditions in which such derogation was possible should also be investigated.

OOC: If we make those the rules for the UN voting we'd have to kick a lot of people out of the UN. Not that I mind, but still.

Please expand. Why ?

Note :

The resolution mildly affects the individuals political rights, but does not attempt in any way to overthrow democracy.

I've already mentioned that the resolution should apply only to the countries who supply universal voting.

I don't really see the point in this, insofar as it can only apply to democracies. But what does it accomplish to try to make their electoral systems "fairer", whilst oppressive dictatorships can continue unaffected?

In any case, it's clear this should be a national prerogative, and nothing more.

It's also one of the most sublimely arrogant propositions I've seen - an impressive feat.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

This will have a lot of opposition - not least from me. Hopefully I'll be able to explain why. Kudos to you first of all for showing willingness to discuss this, but you should have done this before submission in an ideal world.1.The legal age for a young person to be eligible to vote
should be 21. At 18, a young man might be self-aware, but in most cases he will not be politically conscious. Any derogation from this law, should keep the minimal age of 21 as a necessary condition.For a start, I resent the implied sexism here. Secondly, whilst citizens of Vlad The Mighty might lack political savvy, not every nation is as uneducated. Thirdly, even if lack of political knowledge is a problem, is that not representitive of your nation?2. No person older than 65 should be able to vote, without
presenting a mental health file. From this age brain degenerative disease such as Alhzeimer may uncounsciously affect one's reason.Moreover this legislation is ageist. And if you have a large portion of your nation over 65 who are old, removing them from elections makes the democratic process undemocratic. Medical conditions are private in many nations, not the subject of scrutiny from the outside.
3.Before being eligible to vote, any 21 year old youngster
should present a mental health certificate, a nationality
proof certificate and a signed petition to prove that he hasn't been a part of any forbidden or radical political and military group. This proof should simply be a form containing all the political groups, political activity and contact that the young man has had in the past years.Forbidden groups where exactly?
4.Any illegal voting should be punished by the canceling of the vote (if possible) and a fee, established by each state. The conditions in which such derogation was possible should also be investigated.Crime and punishment is a matter for the state.

I'm not a big national soverignist nowadays, but I would oppose this outright, not just on national soverignty groups, but because it seeks to make the democratic process undemocratic.

Please expand. Why ?

OOC: I'll give you a hint. The average age of NS players is not greater then 21.

And frankly, trying to convince a bunch of people who are OOCly under 21 that they should not allow anyone under 21 to vote in their nations is probably not going to go well.

1.Where exactly is the sexism involved ?

2.I based the law on actual political facts. Real world facts ! Most 18 year olds (as most actual UN countries have chosen this age for legal voting) are politically unaware. The uncounscious voting of several population masses may lead to undesired results.

3.Obvioulsy, going to a senior center with milk and cookies and forcing those poor fellows to vote for candidate X seems awfully moral and democratic. I did add an elligibility clause to that , though.

4.I should have mentioned that those should be the minimal actions taken agains derrogators.

1.Where exactly is the sexism involved ? "At 18, a young man might be self-aware...." What about young women?2.I based the law on actual political facts. Real world facts !Real life does not equal nation states.Most 18 year olds (as most actual UN countries have chosen this age for legal voting) are politically unaware. The uncounscious voting of several population masses may lead to undesired results.MOST, not all. And not in Hirota. Our kids are savvy and intelligent enough to know how to vote. Heck, our kids are more intelligent than some adults in other nations, so if you want to block kids because they are not aware, you'll have to block unaware adults too.3.Obvioulsy, going to a senior center with milk and cookies and forcing those poor fellows to vote for candidate X seems awfully moral and democratic. I did add an elligibility clause to that , though.1. Nothing wrong with canvassing voters with milk and cookies.
2. Last time I checked nobody actually forces people to put a tick or cross next to a specific name in an actual democracy.
4.I should have mentioned that those should be the minimal actions taken agains derrogators.Fines are too much for some nations.

I've already mentioned that the resolution should apply only to the countries who supply universal voting.
All UN resolutions are applied equally in all UN nations. This fails under the "Optional" rule.

I said "that supply universal voting, even if biased", thus, also pointing to the fact , that let's say, an "iron fist socialist" government will supply voting for a small part of their population and should be subjected to the law. Judging by other terms there are more proposals who contain exceptions.

Since I used the term "person" everywhere else, I don't believe the law could be interpreted as applying to the "male sex" exclusively.

I never read anything in the UN Proposal Regulations about submiting another proposal, completely different of the one submited earlier. If it does not fall under any ban regulation, would it be alright to post another proposal at a short interval from the first ? (Again, a completely different proposal)

You could always submit a GHR and ask that the earlier one be deleted from the proposal list...

I don't intend to remove my early proposal, since , as I've said : The proposals have no connection whatsoerver.

So, should I wait until the first proposal is accepted or dismised ?

I don't intend to remove my early proposal, since , as I've said : The proposals have no connection whatsoerver.

So, should I wait until the first proposal is accepted or dismised ?

My mistake. I misread. Sorry. Submit as many proposals as you like. There are no rules against it. However, I would suggest posting a draft of your proposal here for comments before officially submitting it. You don't want another nation deleted, do you? ;)

I do remember you reporting our first trial, although a deletion was not necessary by anu means.

I'll take my chances with this proposal, although it refers to a pornography restraint. I hope it will be judged accordingly , since it doesn't support any illicite act whatsoever :)

I do remember you reporting our first trial, although a deletion was not necessary by anu means.

I didn't report the first proposal per se, merely posted it here. As I'm sure you saw in your thread in the Moderation forum, Fris had already seen that repugnant proposal and deleted it, along with your nation, before seeing my post in the silly/illegal proposals thread in this forum.

As for warranting a deletion...FFS! I'd delete myself -- from the planet -- for submitting something like that.

I'll take my chances with this proposal, although it refers to a pornography restraint. I hope it will be judged accordingly , since it doesn't support any illicite act whatsoever :)

Good to hear you're at least trying to submit sensible proposals now.

Oh, and here's a tip: Don't submit a Midget Protection Act. :p

I can't remember when it was, but early after blacks earned the Right to Vote in the US, there was a rather small problem that prevented them from still being able to vote. Some states allowed for skill-testing questions, so what they did was give two sets of questions to the people testing the voters. One was being used for the whites, the other for the blacks. Of course, the one for the blacks was harder and thus many of them lost the right to vote unfairly.

While this isn't the same, it does stink of McCarthy style politics. More details later 'cause I gotta go.

I'm not American, so I'm strange of McCarthy's politics.

This law does not make any rasial or sexual reference whatsoever, and since there won't be any tests involved, I don't believe there should be any obstacle in applying democratic principles.

After all, the law still maintains completely free voting for reasonable age groups.

3.Before being eligible to vote, any 21 year old youngster.


OOC:Tell these young soldiers now serving in Iraq they can't vote until they turn 21. As they already tell them they can't drink until 21. Up to end of draft in US it was 18 to serve in military and before that first draft age was 16 during American Revolution.

IC:Our young at age ten gain citizenship with limited rights among them is a right to vote... This is an age old honor given our young who reach a certain point in their lives. We will not change this age. Thus would not support any voting resolution that sets an age limit on when one can vote. We do agree with some of the other points such as the mental health of the person.. as by age ten our young have completed Basic Education and thus shown they have a sane mental ability and also have a knowledge of how our government works so they are informed person. Those that show they can't complete our Basic Education or refuse to complete it don't get citizenship rights of any level.. Full Citizenship rights are given only on completion of National Service at age 16.

This law does not make any rasial or sexual reference whatsoever, and since there won't be any tests involved, I don't believe there should be any obstacle in applying democratic principles.The sexist we can see here but your comment there won't be any tests involvedmakes no sane sense as how do you propose to find a person mentaly able to vote or not? Unless you test them some how... Do you propose that anyone with "Blue Eyes" is mentaly ill thus can't vote?

After all, the law still maintains completely free voting for reasonable age groups.

*Ahem* You seem unaware of the fact that the populations of some UN members include people from species of sapient non-humans, such as Dwarves and Elves and talking Cats, whose natural lifespans & rates of ageing may differ from those for Humans...

I'm not American, so I'm strange of McCarthy's politics.Neither is FL (and I don't think he knows what McCarthyism is, either).

I don't recall seeing anything about witch hunts or blacklists in your proposal. At least, I don't recall.

This proposal is irrelevant for Razat, as we are under martial law. However, age isn't the best way to determine voting fitness. Many 35 year-olds are politically unaware!

McCarthy is a slightly more vague reference than what it would normally be applied to, but that, by no means, detracts from its applicability. McCarthy was around back in the 1950s and is best known for his hard line methods of dealing with his opponents: he called the communists. As the world marched into the Cold War and the wide spread knowledge of the Iron curtain falling upon Europe, the fear of the Communist coming over for dinner and your kids were the appetizers, McCarthy's methods played very well upon people's fear. He had absolutely no proof but claimed he did. Even worse, he would say someone was a communist, and 3 days later, retract his claim and apologize. His initial statement would make front page, his retraction made page 5. Guess which one the citizens believed

Unfortunately for him, he got too bold with his methods and went after the wrong group (I believe the military) and his entire practice.

So, how is this applicable?

People suffered because they failed to follow the principles that all industrialized societies now hold: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. McCarthy made people start from the assumption that the person was guilty and left it to that individual to prove he was innocent. As you can imagine, it is much more difficult to prove that you never met someone than it is to prove that you did meet someone.

So here we are, back at your proposal and I'm narrowing down to clauses 2 and 3, which I consider to be the worst clause of the bunch. You assume the voter is guilty and it is up to the voter to prove his innocence. The UN has already enshrined the policy of innocent until proven guilty into its rulebook, that clause stands against what the UN stands for.

On another note, I absolutely believe that every single terrorist should have equal right to vote, so long as they have become a citizen of the nation they want to vote in. If they fail to prove their citizenship, fine, reject them. I believe every single Communist, Nazi, White/Black supremicist, and, really, any form of extremism should have as much a right to vote as anyone else. I think criminals and prisoners should have that right. Why? Because they are intelligent enough to understand what they're doing and anything that happens from our elections will affect them.

-------------------------

There are two 18 year-old members here who have shown themselves more than capable of understanding politics at the same level or better than many of the regulars who are adults, and certainly more than the vast majority of non-regulars no matter what the age. I, myself, am 20 and I think I've just proven that I've got a good understanding of politics in areas that many who are twice my age do not. There are 45 year olds that I talk to who know nothing about the world going on around them. I mentioned Isreal in a trailer the other day that held 8 people, and only one person knew what I was referring to - and he was just visiting the trailer to pick up something from their printer. Humorously, the two of us would not have qualified for voting by your proposal but every single other person in that trailer would have.

Why do I mention this? Because one's understanding of politics is gained through one's ability to actually pay attention and follow the campaigns and the news. A lot of people aren't interested in that. A lot of people are.

Most industrialized nations nations suffer more greatly today from a lack of participation amongst the younger generation than because there's a lack of knowledge amongst that generation. That generation, the people that don't care and aren't paying attention are also not voting. Those that are know how they want to vote. They may not know which party best represents them, but they know what they believe in.

The Aberdeen delegacy will vote against this should it ever reach quarom.

About the tests : I mean tests such as in "secret question" tests and similar facts, pointing to the similarity Forgottenlands found to a certain practice of the past.

3.Before being eligible to vote, any 21 year old youngster
should present a mental health certificate, a nationality
proof certificate and a signed petition to prove that he hasn't been a part of any forbidden or radical political and military group. This proof should simply be a form containing all the political groups, political activity and contact that the young man has had in the past years.


Sigh. No!

OOC: Currently in my home state they are in court over requiring voters to have a photo identification card to vote. So looking at some of the points made local around that and what is going on can see all sorts of problems with this one. Especialy this clause:

Originally Posted by Vlad The Mighty
3.Before being eligible to vote, any 21 year old youngster
should present a mental health certificate, a nationality
proof certificate and a signed petition to prove that he hasn't been a part of any forbidden or radical political and military group. This proof should simply be a form containing all the political groups, political activity and contact that the young man has had in the past years.

As we have already addressed the age factor we will not get into it again but the rest will try to here.

IC: Here we grant voting rights to all who completed Basic Eduction Courses as required at age ten... This is the age here we set one getting citizenship with limited rights... voting being just one comes at this first level. Thus they have by completing BEC proven themselves mentaly able. Those that fail BEC or refuse to meet the requirements under it don't become citizens. Thus don't move on the National Service where by age sixteen they are full citizens after completing all requirements of National Service. No citizenship no right to vote here. Break any laws and end up in prison you lose most of your rights as citizens; which voting is one.

On the issue of what groups you belong to or may not belong to but might have visited. We don't care what a person does or who they see as long as they don't in the end break some established law. You want to protest Girl Scouts sale of cookies then get a permit and do it by the rules and there is no problem as they have gotten their permits to sale cookies and been told what rules they must follow in doing this. Either group break a law they pay for their actions.

About the tests : I mean tests such as in "secret question" tests and similar facts, pointing to the similarity Forgottenlands found to a certain practice of the past.

IC: You're right. The tests just allow for someone to go through a thousand hoops just to get their bloody right to vote - and if they forget to do the i over "pissing", then they still can be rejected.

This is a demand for corruption to seep into our voting system and a destruction of one of the most important rights to any democracy. We find this proposal nothing short of abhorent.

Hmmm...I intended to post my third and most probably final resolution, but I noticed there is a word limit, which is pretty drastic. Reducing it's size will mean leaving space for new flaws. What should I do ?

Post the draft and ask for editing/trimming. If you clarify that you're looking for editing help, people are more likely to provide suggestions instead of just criticism.

Unless it's really bad.